or built by or for it in or about the outer harbor, to the east of the 200feet strip of its way-ground, or from taking or exacting any toll for such use; and that the Illinois Central Railroad Company be required to abate and remove all obstructions placed by it in said outer harbor, and to quit possession of all lands, waters, and made-ground taken and held by it without right as aforesaid. The state, the city, and the general government all unite in contending that the Lake Front act of 1869 is inoperative and void, for reasons that will be hereafter stated.

In disposing of the questions discussed by counsel, it will be convenient to consider first those relating to the lands or grounds embraced in the Fort Dearborn addition to Chicago. It it apparent, from the facts stated, that whatever title the Illinois Central Railroad Company has to the water lots in that addition, between Randolph street and the Chicago river, is derived, as to some of them, directly, and, as to others, remotely, from the United States. It is, however, insisted, in behalf of the United States, that the subdivision and platting of Fort Dearborn reservation into blocks, lots, streets, and public grounds by Birchard was unauthorized by the act of 1819, under which alone he proceeded, or could have proceeded. The point made is that upon the secretary of war was conferred the power to dispose of military sites found to be useless, and that such power could not be delegated to or exercised by an agent, although specially appointed by him for that purpose. In this view the court does not concur. The direction in the act was that the secretary "cause to be sold" such military sites as were useless,language implying that he might discharge the duty imposed by congress through the agency of some one representing him. It certainly could not have been expected that he would visit Chicago, and personally superintend the sale. The plat shows upon its face, and the United States admits in their information, that Birchard acted in the premises for the secretary of war, and only as his agent. It further appears that he acted under a power of attorney executed under the direction of the president. But it is contended that the power to cause these lands to be sold did not authorize the secretary to dedicate a part of it to the public as streets and public grounds. And, in this connection, the district attorney maintains that the subdivision and platting by Birchard was not in conformity with the Illinois statute of February 27, 1833, for the recording of town plats. By the fifth section of that act, the plat or map, when made out and certified, acknowledged, and recorded, as required by the statute, was to be deemed, as to every donation or grant to the public therein specified, a sufficient conveyance to vest in the city the fee-simple of the lands so designated, and operated as a general warranty. also declared that "the land intended to be for streets, alleys, ways, commons, or other public uses, in any town or city, or addition thereto, shall be held in the corporate name thereof, in trust to and for the uses and purposes set forth and expressed or intended." It is contended that the dedication of the streets and the public grounds south of Randolph street, on the lake shore, did not conform to the statute, and was, at most, a dedication at common law; in which event, it is insisted, the

fee to the streets and public grounds remains in the United States, notwithstanding the title must be held subject to the public uses by the platting and by the subsequent sales of lots with reference thereto. It seems to the court clear that the power given to the secretary to sell-no particular mode for selling being prescribed-carried with it, by necessary implication, authority to adopt any mode that was not unreasonable, in view of the object to be accomplished, and that was customary in the case of lands within the limits of or near to a town or city. If a subdivision, in the mode ordinarily adopted in the locality, of a large tract, so situated, into blocks, lots, streets, and public grounds, was likely to be beneficial to the government, it was the duty of the secretary to adopt that mode of selling. If the subdivision and platting by Birchard was in conformity to the local statute in all material respects, then no conveyance by the United States of the legal title to the streets and public grounds was necessary. If it did not conform to the local law, and if the dedication of the streets and public grounds, shown on the map of Fort Dearborn addition, is to be deemed only valid as a dedication at common law, it would not follow that the United States can have a standing in court in respect to such streets and public grounds. The argument by the district attorney upon this point proceeds upon the ground that the general government, after abandoning Fort Dearborn as a military site, and after having sold the whole of that reservation, except the parts reserved for streets and public grounds, had the capacity to hold the title to such streets and public grounds in trust for the public uses affixed to it. This position cannot be maintained. The United States took the right, title, and claim, as well of soil as of jurisdiction, which the commonwealth of Virginia had in the Northwest Territory, for the purposes only of temporary government, and in trust for the performance of the stipulations and conditions imposed by the deed of cession. It was accepted as a common fund for the use and benefit of all the states, Virginia included. One of those conditions was that the territory so ceded should be laid out and formed into states, having the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as the other states. Consequently, when Illinois was admitted into the Union, "upon the same footing with the original states, in all respects whatever," she succeeded to all the rights of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and eminent domain which Virginia possessed at the date of the cession, "except so far as this right was diminished by the public lands remaining in the possession and under the control of the United States, for the temporary purposes provided for in the deed of cession, and of the legislative acts connected with it. Nothing remained to the United States, according to the terms of the agreement, but the public lands. And if an express stipulation had been inserted in the agreement, granting the municipal right of sovereignty and eminent domain to the United States, such stipulation would have been void and inoperative; because the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a state, except in the case in which it is expressly granted." (Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 v.33F.no.14-48

How. 212, 223; New Orleans v. U. S., 10 Pet. 662;) or where it is nec essary to the enjoyment of the powers conferred by the constitution upon the general government, (Kohl v. U. S., 91 U. S. 367, 372; U. S. v. Fox, 94 U. S. 320; U. S. v. Jones, 109 U. S. 513, 519, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 346.) See, also, Van Brocklin v. State of Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151, 167, 168, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 670. When, therefore, Fort Dearborn reservation was subdivided into lots, and they were sold, with reference to the map or plat of such subdivision, and it was no longer used as a military site, or for any purpose connected with the execution of the powers of the general government, all the lands embraced within its limits ceased to be a part of the national domain. the title to the specific lots passed to those who purchased them, while jurisdiction over the streets and open grounds, dedicated to public use, passed from the United States; the title to, and immediate possession and control of, such streets and grounds, vesting in the local government,—that is, in the municipal corporation of Chicago,-as a public agency of the state for the purposes for which such dedication was made. Touching the action of the secretary of war, and of his agent Birchard, it may also be said that its validity was impliedly recognized in the case, already referred to, of U. S. v. Chicago. The question there was, as we have seen, whether the city had the right to open streets designated on the Birchard plat through that part of Fort Dearborn reservation which had not then been sold, and was still used by the general government as a military site. If the Birchard subdivision was invalid, upon the ground that the secretary could not invest him with power to do what he did, it would have been a ready answer, in that case, to the city's claim of authority to open Michigan avenue through Fort Dearborn reservation to the river, to say that Birchard's subdivision and platting, upon which the city relied, did not bind the United States. On the contrary, the decision proceeded upon the ground that the subdivision and platting was legal, although not done under the personal supervision of the secretary of war; and that the right of the city to open Michigan avenue, as marked on the Birchard map, through that part of the reservation not then sold, would not come into existence until the occupancy of the United States ceased. Whatever doubt may remain upon this point is removed by the act passed by congress, August 1, 1854, for the relief of Jean Baptiste Beaubien, by which the commissioner of the general land-office was authorized to issued to him a patent or patents for certain specified "lots as described and numbered on the survey and plat of the Fort Dearborn addition to Chicago, in the state of Illinois, made under the order of the secretary of war, and now on file in the war-office." This statute is so far a recognition or ratification of the Birchard subdivision, and of the acts of the secretary of war, as to preclude the United States and all others from making any question as to his power to make sale of Fort Dearborn reservation through the agency of Birchard, or as to the authority of the agent to subdivide these lands into blocks, lots, streets, and public grounds.

What has been said is sufficient to show that the United States have long since parted with all jurisdiction over or title to the lands embraced

within that reservation, and that the Illinois Central Railroad Company, shortly after the location of its road within the corporate limits of Chicago, acquired a title in fee to all of the water lots on the lake shore within the Fort Dearborn addition north of Randolph street.

What rights did the railroad company have in virtue of such ownership? There can be no doubt that, upon her admission into the Union, the state of Illinois became the owner of, and acquired jurisdiction over, all the lands within her boundaries covered by the waters of Lake Michigan, subject only to such supervision and control of the use of such waters as might result from the exercise by congress of its powers to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states. Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. 367; Den v. Jersey Co., 15 How. 426; Mumford v. Wardell, 6 Wall. 436; Weber v. Harbor Com'rs, 18 Wall. 57; County of St. Clair v. Livingston, 23 Wall. 68; Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 339; Van Brocklin v. State of Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151, 167, 168, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 670. Upon this ground both the state and the railroad company rest their respective claims. But it is insisted, and we think rightly, that, in the absence of any legislative or governmental direction as to the manner of the occupancy of the bed of the lake within the state, the railroad company, as the riparian owner of the water lots north of Randolph street, had the right, in virtue of such ownership, and as part of its purchase of such lots, to connect the shore-line by artificial constructions with outside waters that were navigable in fact; although the exercise of that right is at all times subject to to such regulations-at least, those not amounting to prohibition-as the state may establish. These principles find support in numerous cases. Dutton v. Strong, 1 Black, 24; Railroad Co. v. Schurmier, 7 Wall. 272; Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497; Weber v. Harbor Com'rs, 18 Wall. 57; Atler v. Packet Co., 21 Wall 389; Delapluine v. Railway Co., 42 Wis. 214; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. $$ 70-77. In Yates v. Milwaukee, one of the questions was as to the rights of riparian owners of lots on Milwaukee river, near Lake Michigan, within the city of Milwaukee, with respect to wharves, piers, and other structures affecting the navigation of that river. The court said: "But, whether the title of the owner of such a lot extends beyond the dry land or not, he is certainly entitled to the rights of a riparian proprietor whose land is bounded by a navigable stream; and among those rights are access to the navigable part of the river from the front of his lot, the right to make a landing, wharf, or pier for his own use, or for the use of the public, subject to such general rules and regulations as the legislature may see proper to interpose for the protection of the rights. of the public, whatever those may be." Again: "This riparian right is property, and is valuable; and, though it must be enjoyed in due subjection to the rights of the public, it cannot be arbitrarily or capriciously destroyed or impaired. It is a right of which, when once vested, the owner can only be deprived in accordance with established law, and, if necessary that it be taken for the public good, upon due compensation." It is difficult to perceive any reason why these doctrines are not applicable to the Great Lakes of our country. It was in the exercise of these